Hon'ble SARRAF, J.—The brief facts giving rise to this appeal and cross-objections are that on 21.7.96 the deceased Tajendra Singh was going on his motorcycle RJ 14 8M 7483 from Jhotwara side toward Ajmeri Gate side in Jaipur. The deceased Ramavtar Srimali was the pillion rider. When the aforesaid motorcycle reached in front of Ganpati Plaza after crossing the road leading to Polo Victory Cinema then the RSRTC bus no.RJ-28-P-0082 driven rashly and negligently by the driver Roop Narayan hit the motorcycle as a result of which Tajendra Singh and Ramavatar Srimali suffered serious injuries in consequence of which they died. Legal representatives of the deceased Tajendra Singh filed motor accident claim case no.1346/96 whereas the legal representatives of the deceased Ramavtar Srimali filed motor accident claim case no.1398/96. Learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs.5,26,120/- in motor accident claim case no.1346/96 and of Rs.6,79,600/- in motor accident claim case no.1398/96. Aggrieved, the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has filed appeal only against the award passed in motor accident claim case no.1346/06 and in this appeal the claimantsrespondents have filed cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. Heard learned counsels for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident was caused due to contributory negligence of the deceased Tajendra Singh and, therefore, the compensation amount be reduced to the extent of negligence of the deceased Tajendra Singh. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has denied any negligence on the part of the deceased Tajendra Singh. He has also supported crossobjections and has contended that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the respondents is grossly inadequate and, therefore, it should be enhanced suitably. 5. Amar Singh AW6 and Bhanwar Lal AW7 are the eye witnesses and they have stated that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the RSRTC bus. The driver Roop Narayan Meena has examined himself as NAW.1. He has stated in his cross-examination that he did not file any report against the driver of the motorcycle. He has also admitted that at the time of the accident around 40 passengers were in the bus but none of these passengers has been examined by him. The driver Roop Narayan Meena has examined himself as NAW.1. He has stated in his cross-examination that he did not file any report against the driver of the motorcycle. He has also admitted that at the time of the accident around 40 passengers were in the bus but none of these passengers has been examined by him. It is fully established by the statements of Amar Singh AW.6 and Bhanwar Lal AW.7 that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Roop Narayan Meena and there is no evidence on the record to show that the driver of the motorcycle was in any way negligent. Learned Tribunal after discussing the evidence available on the record in detail has decided issue no.1 in favour of the respondents and I fully agree with the view taken by learned Tribunal. It is also note-worthy that the appellant has not filed any appeal in motor accident claim case no.1398/96. From the above discussion, it is clear that the argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding contributory negligence is devoid of any force. 6. It appears that the deceased Tajendra Singh was 25-26 years old and he was employed in Rajasthan Cylinder and Containers Ltd. as Data Entry Operator and his salary was Rs.3085/- per month. Learned Tribunal after raising the income of the deceased to Rs.3500/- and after deducting Rs.970/- per month on account of personal expenses, which is far less then 1/3 of the total income of the deceased and after adopting a multiplier of 17 assessed the dependency as Rs.2530X12X17= Rs.5,16,120/- and after adding Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses, loss to the estate and loss of consortium etc. passed a total award of Rs.5,26,120/-. I am of the opinion that learned Tribunal has been quite generous in deducting less than 1/3 of the income of the deceased on account of personal expenses. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal is appropriate. 7. It is thus clear that the compensation amount awarded to the respondents is fair and reasonable and there is absolutely no ground of enhancement. 8. Consequently the appeal no.1714/00 is dismissed and cross objection no.61/2002 also stand dismissed.